• Section I: Introduction– Measures and metrics

• Section II: FY06 Research Statistics– http://www.oar.umn.edu/trends/index.cfm

• Section III: Ten Year Analyses: UMN• Section IV: Comparative Analyses• Section V: Other Research Ranking

Systems• Section VI: Strategies to Increase

Competitiveness• Section VII: Conclusions

Annual Report: Table of Contents

• Research awards increased 7.5% to $619M• Expenditures increased 5.7% to $548M• Significant award changes:

– AHC-shared +47%; Public Health +45%; CLA +21%; – IT -6%; SoN -9%; Pharmacy -10%; CLA -26%; Vet Med -

10%; Education -19%

• 71% of awards were from federal sources• Patent & licensing activity increased 12.5%;

Gross revenues = $63.5M• UMN ranked 6th in terms of revenue

generation from university-based technologies

FY07 Research Statistics: Highlights

NSF Survey Expenditures(Dollar amounts represented in millions)

• 2006 Total =$595M• 8.4% Increase• 2nd largest increase among top 20 publics

Report Figure 3.1

NSF Survey Expenditures2006 R&D Expenditures

(Dollar amounts represented in thousands)

• UMN ranked 9th among US public universities in 2006• up from 10th in 2005

Report Figure 4.1

NSF Survey Expenditures% Increase 1998-2006

• UMN ranked 15th among publics on basis of 9 year growth rate; up from 16th in 2004

Report Figure 4.2

• Increase (8.4%) in 2006 expenditures was 2nd largest among top 20 US universities

• UMN ranked 9th among publics; rebounding from a decline to 10th in 2005

• The “gap” between UMN and the #3 public declined from $237M in 2005 to $205M in 2006

Report Table 4.2

Academic S&E Expenditures: 2006

(Dollar amounts represented in thousands)

Differences in totalexpenditures reflect considerable differences in sources of support

Report Figure 4.3

Rank in Major Categories

Expenditures of Institutional Funds

(Dollar amounts represented in thousands)

Most universities are increasing the level of institutional funding available to support research

Report Figure 4.4

Expenditures of B&I Funds(Dollar amounts represented in thousands)

Dramatic increase in B&I support of research at Ohio State contributed to an increase in rank from 10th to 7th in just 2 years, illustrating the potential impact of B&I partnerships

Report Figure 4.5

Federal Obligations for FY2005Science and Engineering

(Dollar amounts represented in millions)

A Measure of Competitiveness

UMN ranks 10th among public research universities by this metric; proposed as an indicator of “competitiveness”

Report Figure 4.6

Federal ObligationsPercentage Share

UMN’s share of federal obligations to research universities has declined since 1997

Report Figure 4.7

Other Ranking Systems

• Academic Rankings of World Universities

– University Ranking– Broad Field Analysis

• Bibliometric Indicators– Citation Frequency– “Relative Impact”

Report Table 5.2

Report Table 5.3

Report Table 5.4

Science Watch Highest Impact Universities

• UMN was among the Top Ten in 4 of the 21 academic fields included in the Science Watch analysis.

• 4 universities in UMN’s public university comparison group were among the “Highest Impact” universities, ranking Top Ten in 5 or more fields

• UMN ranked 5th among public research universities, tied with several others with 4 Top Tens

Report Table 5.5

Strategiesto Increase Competitiveness

• Collegiate strategies to enhance productivity• Increase support systems and reduce burdens• Admin support for large, complex proposals• Increase responsiveness to solicitations• Advocate for opportunities aligned with

strengths• Enhance partnerships with Business and

Industry• Increase institutional support• Maintain disciplinary strengths and encourage

interdisciplinary approaches

• The U posted the second largest increase in research expenditures for 2006 among the top 20 research universities (public or private)

• This ends a stretch of several years in which the U’s research expenditure growth-rate lagged behind the average for its comparison group

• The U ranked 9th among public universities in 2006, rebounding from a slip to 10th in 2005

• The U is “closing the gap” between itself and “Number 3”

• The U ranks among the elite public universities in several ranking systems based on “outputs”; many research areas rank in the top ten

• Though early, the data suggest that strategic positioning initiatives are moving the U toward its aspirational goals

Conclusions